I'm proposing this as a companion thread to
What evidence is needed to change a creationist, where Lithodid-Man has requested that creationist responses not be discussed. The creationist responses tell me that creationists have trouble seeing when evidence is connected to conclusions. In some cases they draw conclusions unrelated to the evidence, and in others they reject conclusions clearly indicated by the evidence. I'll use this opening post to address Buzsaw's
Message 13.
Lithodid-Man described his topic this way:
Lithodid-Man writes:
In this thread I want to hear what evidences it would require to disprove creationism to our EvC creationists. This is referring specifically to the theory of special creation, creation Ex Nihilo...
So, I want to hear exactly what evidence (if any) it would take to make you question, all or in part, the post-Morris version of creationism. A hypothetical fossil find, archeology, a discovery in cosmology, any possibility is welcome. Flood and Exodus material completely acceptable as well.
Replying now to Buz's
Message 13:
Buzsaw writes:
1. Falsify all the fulfilled Biblical prophecies. LOL!
Buz sees fulfilled Biblical prophecies as evidence for creationism. Since, for example, Daniel predicts the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, therefore there was a global flood.
This is a common feature of creationist thought, drawing conclusions about things unrelated to the evidence under consideration, so it seems valid to conclude that to convince creationists of science you first have to find a cure for incredibly fuzzy thinking.
2. Falsify the fact that God reveals himself to those of us who acknowledge him. According to the Bible he draws near to and reveals himself in manifold ways to those who draw to and acknowledge him.
There are two problems with this statement. First, science can only comment on the evidence for a phenomenon, and so far there is no evidence of this phenomenon.
Second, science doesn't falsify phenomena. It seeks to explain and understand phenomena by gathering and interpreting evidence. It is the hypotheses and theories regarding phenomena that are falsified, not the phenomena themselves.
There is a class of phenomena where it is the observations that are in error, such as the canals on Mars and N-Rays, but science takes care of this problem through the requirement of replication. For example, you might get different astronomers to draw pictures of the canals of Mars and see if they match. Astronomers did produce such drawings, and of course they never matched, and so even though some astronomers of note were canal advocates (e.g., Percival Lowell) the possibility of canals on Mars never won broad acceptance within science, and as better telescopes became available it became obvious the canals were not really there, but were just an artifact of staring for a long time at a blurry image.
3. Have your secularist researchers go to Nuweiba Beach at Aqaba and falsify the alleged chariot wheels encased in coral as well as all the corroborating evidence in the area relative to the Biblical Exodus account.
Once again we see the lack of any connection of evidence, in this case supposed evidence for Exodus, to any creationist position. For instance, one would never reason, "Because Exodus happened, therefore there was a global flood." Or more specifically but having nothing to do with creationism, one would never argue, "Because Exodus was a real event, therefore the Red Sea actually
*did* part and the Egyptian army
*was* drowned when the parted waters returned."
5. Empirically account for all the design evident in the DNA, the human cell and brain logically and mathematically relative to the mathematical probabilities.
This is a legitimate request actually related to creationist beliefs. Buzsaw requests that science explain how the design apparent in nature could have arisen naturally.
6. Explain why your theory can circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics relative to your contention that there was no before the BB.
This is legitimate, too. We've typically done a poor job on the Big Bang, where I think we should resort more often to "We don't know." Not that we aren't working on it, not that we don't have some ideas, but the truth is that we do not as yet know what caused the Big Bang or what came before it.
7. Falsify the evidence of the supernatural relative to bo good and evil such as voodoo, the accult and such as is experienced from time to time in churches; things like exorcism, healings etc.
This is the same fallacy as point 2. Science observes phenomena, it doesn't falsify them. All science can say about phenomenon for which there is no evidence is that it is what it is. There's no evidence, so science has nothing to say.
8. Explain the probabilities mathematically as to how so many factors relative to life on earth just happen to be right in order for life as we observe it to exist; things like a the properties of the atmosphere etc, the location of sun and moon relative to earth, the properties of the planet's surface such as soil, water, gravity, the intensity of the sun's heat, etc, etc.
Seems like a good question, but the anthropic principle is very difficult to discuss.
9. Verify that life began naturally void of ID, existed long enough to begin to multiply and the mathematical probabilities of procreation of life to the extent that is observed today. I know we've been told, but nothing has come close, better than ID, yet to convince me.
This is perhaps Buz's best point. Creationists don't accept scientific arguments concerning the origin of life or the origin of species because it just seems so incredibly miraculous that matter and energy could just do this all by themselves without guidance. It is easier for them to accept the miracle of God than the miracle of unguided matter and energy creating life.
But this doesn't explain from where springs all the creationist nonsense. Just because it seems impossible for life to spring from non-life, that doesn't mean that science is wrong about the Big Bang, wrong about the age of the universe, wrong about the age of the earth, wrong about radiometric dating, wrong about how floods affect geology, and so forth.
To have legitimacy, creationism has to develop consistent criteria for what it accepts and rejects in science. Creationists accept science that gives them better televisions and computers, or spectacular pictures of Jupiter and Eta Carina, but they reject it if it comes anywhere near their belief in the Bible, and this criteria has nothing to do with evidence or the quality of evidence. This inconsistency regarding the assessment of evidence is a primary reason why creationism isn't science, because it illustrates how creationism is just a random list of scientific theories they reject based upon their religious beliefs.
--Percy
Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
Edited by Percy, : Fix introductory paragraph.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Testing a bug fix.
Edited by Admin, : Continuing to test bug fix.
Edited by Percy, : Continuing to test bug fix.
Edited by Admin, : Finish bug testing.
™ Version 4.2